JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J.( Oral) - By way of instant bail petition filed under section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a prayer has been made for grant of bail in case FIR No. 164/17 dated 7.11.2017, under Section 376 (D) IPC registered at Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sequel to order dated 14.11.2017, ASI Santosh Raj, has come present in Court alongwith the record of the case. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Facts, as emerge from the record as well as status report reveals that FIR mentioned above came to be registered against the bail petitioners at the behest of complainant namely Seema Devi alias Riya, who alleged that on 6th November, 2017, she went with bail petitioner namely Lokesh, who works in a Gymnasium, in his car for a ride. As per complainant, above named bail petitioner later on disclosed her that his another friend namely Yaman is also with him and he shall be joined by another friend of him after some time. Subsequently, complainant along with bail petitioner namely Lokesh went to place called "Bhattakufar" to bring above named friend of bail petitioner. Since, friend of bail petitioner namely Yaman had not come, complainant also insisted that she needs to go back to her room. Complainant, who was thirsty, was provided juice by bail petitioner but complainant after having consumed the same felt sleepy and as such, she doesn''t know what happened thereafter. Complainant further alleged that when she became conscious, she found herself in a room, where she was made to consume liquor by above named bail petitioners and thereafter, bail petitioners forcibly sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Complainant was subsequently rescued by the persons residing in a room next to the room where she was allegedly rapped by the bail petitioners. 4. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners, while referring to the record/status report, contended that no case is made out in as much as under Section 376(D) against the bail petitioners because there is no specific allegation, if any, of sexual assault by bail petitioners. While referring to the status report, Mr. 4. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners, while referring to the record/status report, contended that no case is made out in as much as under Section 376(D) against the bail petitioners because there is no specific allegation, if any, of sexual assault by bail petitioners. While referring to the status report, Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, strenuously argued that it has specifically come in the record that complainant who is a married woman, refused to undergo medical examination and as such, adverse inference is ought to be drawn against her. Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, further contended that bail petitioners are in custody since 7th November, 2017 for no fault of them because bare conduct of complainant ultimately suggests that she joined the company of bail petitioners of her own volition and at no point of time, she was forced by bail petitioners to accompany them. Learned counsel further contended that both the bail petitioners are local residents of the area and they shall be always available for investigation as well as trial and there is no likelihood of them fleeing from justice and as such, they are entitled to be released on bail. 5. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the aforesaid prayer having been made by the learned counsel, representing the bail petitioners, fairly conceded that investigation in this case is complete and at this stage, nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioners who are in custody since 7th November, 2017. Though, Mr. Chauhan, forcefully contended that keeping in view the gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioners, they are not entitled to bail but Mr. Chauhan, was unable to refute that prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination after alleged incident. Though, the aforesaid aspect of the matter is to be considered and decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence, if any, adduced on record by the prosecution, but this Court after having carefully perused the record/status report, sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner in custody, who are already in custody for last 15 days. There is nothing on record from where it can be inferred that in the event of bail petitioners being enlarged on bail, they shall not make themselves available for investigation and trial and they shall temper with the evidence. 6. There is nothing on record from where it can be inferred that in the event of bail petitioners being enlarged on bail, they shall not make themselves available for investigation and trial and they shall temper with the evidence. 6. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. Petitioners are the local residents of the place mentioned in the application and they shall remain available to face the trial and to undergo imprisonment, if any, imposed upon him. 7. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, with following conditions: (a) They shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 9. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 10. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. 11. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 12. Copy dasti.